- From: <dee3@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:17:22 -0400
- To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
URI's are not valid XML, in general. They can have multiple internal colons that have nothing to do with the XML meaning of colon, etc. I believe it does have the fix point property. The URI still is present in the output. It is just that the prefix string is replaced by its hash. If you re-cannonicalize, you hash the same URI and get the same prefix. Ditto for the default namespace. Donald Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd 17 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532 USA dee3@us.ibm.com tel: 1-914-784-7913, fax: 1-914-784-3833 home: 65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR#1, Carmel, NY 10512 USA dee3@torque.pothole.com tel: 1-914-276-2668 "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> on 06/08/99 02:34:31 PM To: Donald Eastlake/Hawthorne/IBM@IBMUS cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org Subject: Re: Namespace treatment for C14N At 12:14 PM 6/8/99 -0400, dee3@us.ibm.com wrote: >It's the hash of the URI, not the hash of what the URI points to. That's how I first read it and thought, "that doesn't abide by the 'fixed point property.' " But I thought, why bother? So I reread the following "expanded" > >2. Hex coding of MD5 of the Expanded URI is used as the new prefix. to read fetch the resource for security; which still didn't abide by the fixed point property. A hash of a hash will still be a different hash regardless if the first was generated from the URI string or it's resource. So: 1. Why bother with a hash of the URI string? Why not use the URI? 2. Is it worth losing "fixed point" because of it? _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-DSig Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 1999 15:58:54 UTC